The American Medical Association met at Chicago, and set up a strong opposition to the "order." Certain persons brought charges against the surgeon general. A commission was appointed. The _Times_ said, "The whole affair has the appearance of a secret and deliberate conspiracy against the surgeon general.... The commission is, in the first place, headed by a person known to be hostile to the surgeon general. This fact throws suspicion upon the _object_ of the investigation." Just so. The "object" was to appoint some one instead of Dr. Hammond, who would repeal the obnoxious order. No matter what _pretence_ was set up beside, this is the fact of the case, and the people and the profession know this to be true. But how shall we judge of the motives of Dr. Hammond but by _appearances_? Who so well knew the value, or injury, of calomel, as he who had used it for twenty odd years? Admitting Professor Chapman, of Philadelphia, was within twenty years of right when he said, "He who resigns the fate of his patient to calomel, ... if he has a tolerable practice, will, in a single season, lay the foundation of a good business for life," did not Dr. H. exhibit a little selfishness in attempting to deprive young practitioners of the opportunity of laying for themselves a foundation for a prosperous future? "Doubtless," said a medical journal of the day, "all _quacks_ and _irregulars_ are congratulating themselves upon the appearance of this 'order.'" This leads us to ask, "Who are the quacks?" The governor of Ohio, in 1861, made inquiry of the United States surgeon general, to know if the regiments of that state could be allowed to choose between allopathic and homeopathic surgeons. "_No: I'll see them damned to hell first_," was the gracious reply. The resolutions drawn up and adopted by the New York Academy of Medicine as an offset against the appeal for admission of homeopathic surgeons into the army (1862), contained the following:-- "3d. That it (homeopathy) is no more worthy of such introduction than other kindred methods of practice as closely allied to _quackery_." There were then some thirty-five hundred of that sort of "quacks" practising under diplomas--mostly obtained from regular colleges--in the United States. Shame! The Royal College, Dublin, the same year, in a resolution passed, called Mesmerism and homeopathy quackery. In an article in the "Scalpel," from the able pen of Dr. Richmond,--about the time that the "swarm of vampires that was the first fruits of the tribe of rooters that swarmed the State of New York under the teachings of T. and B." (Thompson and Beach),--he calls botanics and eclectics quacks and Paracelsuses! Clear as--mud!